United States v. Steven Metro, 882 F.3d 431

Steven Metro, a former law-firm managing clerk, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate securities laws and insider trading after providing material nonpublic information to middleman Frank Tamayo (2009–2013).
Tamayo passed Metro’s tips to broker Vladimir Eydelman, who executed trades for multiple clients; combined illicit gains from Metro-based tips totaled about $5.67 million.
The PSR attributed the entire $5.6M+ of gain to Metro under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.4, producing an 18-level enhancement and a guideline range of 57–71 months (reduced for acceptance and a 2-level variance to 46–57 months).
Metro disputed attribution of Eydelman’s gains, arguing he did not know of Eydelman while tipping Tamayo and did not intend Tamayo to pass tips to a broker.
At sentencing the District Court overruled Metro’s objection without resolving disputed facts, relying on commentary to § 2B1.4 and this Court’s decision in Kluger to attribute all gains to Metro and imposing a 46-month sentence.
The Third Circuit vacated and remanded: it held the district court failed to conduct the individualized scope inquiry required by § 1B1.3 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i) before attributing downstream gains to Metro.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Metro)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Whether gains from Eydelman’s trades may be attributed to Metro under § 2B1.4	Metro argued he did not act in concert with or provide inside information to Eydelman and lacked knowledge of Eydelman during the tipping period	Gov’t argued Kluger allows attribution to the tipper when downstream trading flowed from the tip and that Metro need only have known someone else was obtaining the information	The court held that § 2B1.4’s gain analysis requires first identifying the defendant’s scope of relevant conduct under § 1B1.3; attribution is not automatic without resolving scope/knowledge facts
Whether the district court satisfied its obligation to resolve disputed sentencing facts (Rule 32(i))	Metro argued the court failed to resolve factual disputes (e.g., knowledge of Eydelman) and improperly relied on the plea and Kluger without findings	Gov’t relied on the plea, the conspiracy charge naming Eydelman, and a post-scheme transcript to support attribution	The court held the district court erred by not resolving disputed facts or making findings by a preponderance of the evidence; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing and factfinding

United States v. Kluger, 722 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 2013) (addressed attribution of insider-trading gains where defendant knowingly acted with and intended information to reach downstream broker)
United States v. Collado, 975 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1992) (requires searching, individualized inquiry into defendant’s role when attributing co-conspirator conduct at sentencing)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 1993) (treats Sentencing Guidelines commentary as authoritative absent inconsistency)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (procedural sentencing errors, including improper guideline calculations, typically require remand)
United States v. Langford, 516 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (erroneous guideline range commonly mandates reversal)
United States v. Mannino, 212 F.3d 835 (3d Cir. 2000) (sentencing accountability is not coextensive with conspiracy liability)